[mieseratte]

Snark: It's nice for the helicopter parent who also doesn't want their kids exposed to a phone, so it'll probably sell just fine.

I suppose because I'm not a parent, I don't have that built in level of worry / paranoia, though I "fondly" remember how fearful my own mother was, but I don't get it. Isn't the point of letting your kid venture out to help them establish and explore freedom and boundaries?

You tell your child not to stay out past the street lights, not venture past certain landmarks, and then let them roam. If they comply, great! If not, they learn actions have consequences.

If I were a kid, I'd make sure to conveniently forget / power off / not charge / lose that thing as much as possible.

[creep]

I was born in 1995, so I was a young child in the early 2000's, in a low income neighborhood with a single mother. One of the mothers in that neighborhood was an addict to some hard drug I can't remember. Probably crack. The surrounding neighborhood was decent-- the age and size of the houses puts them at around 200-300K at the time. We had a huge open field area in back of the house. (Descriptions are to give an idea of the safety level inherent to the neighborhood). As I got older (7, on) my mother loosened the reigns a bit, and eventually my friends and I would go on day-long adventures exploring the open field and wooded areas. We sometimes came across bedding and other supplies, and one time almost stumbled on a homeless guy waking up.

My mom was often worried, but she set just a few hard rules: Come back inside when the streetlights go on, don't talk to anyone you see while out, don't go anywhere further than the parking lot alone. And that was fine, and we got smart because of it. We were vigilant and carefree at the same time. We crossed roads looking both ways to get to parks we'd never been to. And we pushed the boundaries a little to see what would happen.

Me and my female friend were once approached by a guy "looking for a dog". He wanted us to come with him to the dog park to help him look for it. Understanding what it could mean, we said no and ran inside-- as we'd been taught. Since we were given the freedom to make such decisions, and since we'd seen danger before, we knew the "right thing" to do and we chose to do it.

I didn't have a cell phone back then. I'm sure if I was given one I'd promptly "lose it" just as you say. In suburbia it's just not necessary to be in constant contact with your kid. They're not gonna call you unless you've raised them to be as docile and paranoid as yourself. They won't need to.

[le-mark]

Before I had kids of my own, I shared your view. After having kids, I can easily see how people become irrational about child safety. I fight it myself, constantly. I think a lot of it is due the sensational, salacious media coverage the bad stuff, makes it seem more prominent now than in the past.

[stronglikedan]

I think it's also due to the fact that the authorities are charging parents with neglect for simply letting their kids do the exact same things I was allowed to do as a kid without consequence. Even parents that want to let their kids roam safely cannot do so any longer due to some overreacting busybodies.

[jimbokun]

"It's nice for the helicopter parent who also doesn't want their kids exposed to a phone..."

First of all, the dangers of modern phones to emotional health, for adults as well as children, I think is very well established by now.

So this device seems like a decent compromise for overly concerned parents (this is a redundant phrase).

I think there are also benefits for the child. In earlier generations, children would need to run home to ask permission to stay out longer or engage in a new activity. Now they can make those requests with less interruption to their current activities.

"If they comply, great! If not, they learn actions have consequences."

The key is to figure out what level of consequences they are ready to handle at different points in their development.

[s_kilk]

> If they comply, great! If not, they learn actions have consequences.

Or they die, which kinda sucks.

Look, I'm generally in favour of kids wandering about the place like I did when I was a kid, but even back then we had a tragically high number of kids getting themselves crushed under farm equipment, falling from heights and landing hard, getting exposed to hazardous materials, or drowning in pits full of animal shit.

It's simply disingenuous to act as if the worst that can happen is a wee scrape and a lesson learned.

[eropple]

That "tragically high" number was still a rounding error, though, in the United States.

I do wonder if it is a particularly American thing to take the wild exception as the norm like this.

[s_kilk]

Ireland, actually. I'd be curious to see the stats, but suffice to say enough families were losing children that there were major changes to farm safety regulation.

[cfadvan]

Ireland here as well, and that had a lot to do with poverty and families needing their kids to work at a young age. The same was true in the US before child labor laws. I think a general “ambient” risk and a culture of,having your 9 year old work on the farm or in a mill are fundamentally separate issues.

[mieseratte]

> It's simply disingenuous to act as if the worst that can happen is a wee scrape and a lesson learned.

> but even back then we had a tragically high number of kids getting themselves crushed under farm equipment, falling from heights and landing hard, getting exposed to hazardous materials, or drowning in pits full of animal shit.

I think it's a bit odd to act as if kids are routinely parading around industrial zones. It sounds as if you and I grew up in vastly different parts of the world.

[watwut]

> If not, they learn actions have consequences.

Those consequences may mean that everyone is looking for them whole night. Or severe injury. Or you having to deal with cops due to trespassing.

Or that they will bully other kids and you won't be there to learn it happened and deal with it.

There are consequences as in "teacher is angry for 5 minutes" and then there are consequences.

Also, if my kid would intentionally loose devices like that, that kid would have less freedom and later then the kid I could trust.

[creep]

What are you gonna do as a parent with a little handheld device to ensure your child isn't bullying anyone? What an odd worry.

[watwut]

Why is that odd worry and what it has to do with the device?

[spdionis]

The only truly problematic thing from those you listed is severe injury, and I would add it is the less common.

[watwut]

Uhm, how is "everyone is looking for a child whole night" not problem? You have inconvenienced multiple people a lot. Not just the kid. This happen twice and the kid is not going out alone next year.

Similar with bullying and worry about potential bad influence group.

[Angostura]

> If not, they learn actions have consequences.

Some of which are potentially fatal.

[mieseratte]

We can't just stop letting folks live life because something bad might happen. Otherwise we'll just say "Think of the children" and ban everything.

  Why don't we put pads on the kids, helmets, head gear and mouth pieces
  Then we could pad the floor and walls, put cameras inside bathroom stalls

  NOFX - Separation of Church and Skate[0]

[0] - https://genius.com/Nofx-the-separation-of-church-and-skate-l...

[Angostura]

If only there was some way of navigating between "I let my kids do anything" and "I let my kids do nothing".

[s_m_t]

Odd, we don't let adults do "anything" but somehow we don't place all of them under virtual house arrest

[mieseratte]

Well, I certainly never suggested letting ones kids "do anything," only noting that the point of letting kids roam is to afford them some freedom as individuals.

[artpepper2]

On the other hand ... as a kid I roamed around, but I always had a quarter for the payphone just in case of emergency. Cell phone is the modern equivalent.